Eiffel tower anti terrorism barrier

[AHarvey]

Where's that video of the guy laughing at Trump and his wall...

You know it's not cod right?

Which COD was it where you had to defend the Eiffel Tower? actually, i think it was being turned into a Tesla coil so maybe it was Red Alert...

 

[Energize]

lol rather harder to kill a load of people with Molotov cocktails than it is with firearms.... most people would likely start running

It's a compromise. Complete protection would require building a high quality bunker around it and military security with a large enough garrison. Stopping vehicles and bullets is a very good way to stop the most likely attacks of peaceful mass murder and that's what this is for.

Incendiary devices when used in a confined space can be very lethal, my concern is that this actually creates a situation where people are more confined thus are more vulnerable to these attack vectors.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Of course, we are were we are. So we are under threat. Putting up walls and barriers is not going to stop that. Stopping interfering and generating war and hatred in the middle east might go a lot further to stopping it though.

Rubbish. It didn't stop it for the first 500 years it was tried and it didn't stop it for the centuries after that. The only thing that has ever stopped it is war, full on war with conquest and occupation.

You're blaming "the west", which is very fashionable and politically correct. But wrong. "the west" has been under threat from the middle east for ~1350 years and the attacks were all one way for the first few centuries.

The Nazis believed (or at least claimed to believe) that they were acting wholly in self-defence, not even self defence and revenge. Do you blame everyone else for the Nazis? If not, why not? According to your argument, the Nazis had even more justification because they weren't even claiming revenge as a motive.

There might, just might have been a brief window of opportunity for nonviolent (not peaceful) co-existence after the fall of the Ottoman empire and that was sunk by Britain and France with the Sykes-Picot agreement. But it would have been an extremely risky gamble with very little chance of success and if it went at all wrong "the west" would probably have been conquered. Which might be what you want. It's certainly what you would get with your plan, which would result in a very wealthy, very powerful and highly militarised Islamic State controlling most of the oil in the world and thus most of the world and then all of the world because it wouldn't be possible to stop them taking it. Then the whole world would either be a brutal authoritarian state or in a never ending civil war, depending on how successful the rulers were in suppressing dissent.

 

[Jean-F]

what do you expect from the French?

vous patinez sur glace mince là mon ami.

 

[Rifte]

It's a bit like airport security. It has two purposes. To make people feel a little safer while at the same time reminding them that they are at risk. It keeps the populace's attention against the middle east and in line with current military policy. It also keeps people afraid and angry enough so when the government ask for permission to bomb another area of the middle east they will approve.

However this is simply perpetuating the whole thing, which is a (now) 6 decade campaign to prevent the middle east uniting into a super power, at the same time as securing any oil they can and securing control over areas to run pipelines.

God forbid they fight back because they don't have 500lb laser guided bombs, which apparently can hit a postage stamp, so the women and children are safe.... it's a 500lb bomb, it takes the whole street out and no they are not always that accurate. If they fight back it has to be with what they have; IEDs, vans, suicide bombers.

One thing you can be 100% sure of is when that 500lb bomb lands true on the door knocker of an ISIS safe house in Syria ... taking out three buildings full of women and children next door.... on Monday morning the recruitment office queue at ISIS will be three times longer.

When they apparently deal with one bogey man, they manufacturer another, usually by ******* people off afresh bombing them.

I also disagree with the term "Terrorist". I believe it is just a faction in the middle east believing it is defending it's self and seeking retribution for the atrocities 'merka and it's side kicks in Europe have been doing in the middle east. If "terrorist" is being used because of attacks on civilians then we need to look at the number of civilian casualties in the middle east at the hands of the west. They outnumber those in the US, UK, Frane by orders of magnitude.

Remember 60 years ago, it was us who invented carpet bombing of civilians in cities. Look up how many civilians were bombed in Berlin in the 40s. We have Bomber Harris of the RAF to thank for that technique.

War IS terror.

Of course, we are were we are. So we are under threat. Putting up walls and barriers is not going to stop that. Stopping interfering and generating war and hatred in the middle east might go a lot further to stopping it though.

 

[Tefal]

Incendiary devices when used in a confined space can be very lethal, my concern is that this actually creates a situation where people are more confined thus are more vulnerable to these attack vectors.

It's a huge space... bigger than the Eiffel tower foot print.

 

[IronWarrior]

It's a huge space... bigger than the Eiffel tower foot print.

The entries are not, this is what I believe he is suggesting.

I don't know what the old situation was, am guessing anyone was free to walk around the tower legs.

But since they building a wall around it, that's going to create bottlenecks full of people of people coming and going.


The current security upgrades at the Eiffel Tower can be a double edged sword.

The weak spots are the entry points which makes it vulnerable if one can be taken by a terrorist cell, while any other exits points around the Eiffel Tower are blocked by vehicles or by terrorists with firearms.

With the other exit points blocked and the other one is taken, then you got a fish in a barrel situation like the Anders Behring Breivik mass shooting.

The terrorists cells in France and Paris have shown they have access to AK's as an example to what firearms they can bring to a future attack.

Personally, I put more faith in how much armed security, be it the Police of the Army they have at the tower. I'm guessing that's also very expensive.

 

[MookJong]

It's a bit like airport security. It has two purposes. To make people feel a little safer while at the same time reminding them that they are at risk. It keeps the populace's attention against the middle east and in line with current military policy. It also keeps people afraid and angry enough so when the government ask for permission to bomb another area of the middle east they will approve.

However this is simply perpetuating the whole thing, which is a (now) 6 decade campaign to prevent the middle east uniting into a super power, at the same time as securing any oil they can and securing control over areas to run pipelines.

God forbid they fight back because they don't have 500lb laser guided bombs, which apparently can hit a postage stamp, so the women and children are safe.... it's a 500lb bomb, it takes the whole street out and no they are not always that accurate. If they fight back it has to be with what they have; IEDs, vans, suicide bombers.

One thing you can be 100% sure of is when that 500lb bomb lands true on the door knocker of an ISIS safe house in Syria ... taking out three buildings full of women and children next door.... on Monday morning the recruitment office queue at ISIS will be three times longer.

When they apparently deal with one bogey man, they manufacturer another, usually by ******* people off afresh bombing them.

I also disagree with the term "Terrorist". I believe it is just a faction in the middle east believing it is defending it's self and seeking retribution for the atrocities 'merka and it's side kicks in Europe have been doing in the middle east. If "terrorist" is being used because of attacks on civilians then we need to look at the number of civilian casualties in the middle east at the hands of the west. They outnumber those in the US, UK, Frane by orders of magnitude.

Remember 60 years ago, it was us who invented carpet bombing of civilians in cities. Look up how many civilians were bombed in Berlin in the 40s. We have Bomber Harris of the RAF to thank for that technique.

War IS terror.

Of course, we are were we are. So we are under threat. Putting up walls and barriers is not going to stop that. Stopping interfering and generating war and hatred in the middle east might go a lot further to stopping it though.

You are all over the place in your thinking and have yourself very worked up!

ISIS and terror groups kill far more people IN in the Middle East than outside of it so how does what you are saying make sense? Additionally the motivations for ISIS is to place the world under Islamic rule and punish the West not for past actions...but their lack of respect / devotion to Allah.

I think you need to read some more actual books and less activist material.

 

[Bassmansam]

I was in Paris yesterday and went to the eiffel tower site. must have been asked about ten times if i speak english by a bunch of girls in what is an obvious scam so they can pickpocket you. I assume this is probably not a new thing so why isn't it clamped down on.

The glass walls are a bit of a joke really, as others have said they will just attack elsewhere, or aim at people in the queue to get in/the many people that are hanging round the area.

 

[Nasher]

Barriers like this in very busy places do more harm than good. They just create choke points at the entrances and they can simply run up and allahu akbar those instead.

 

[Johno please?]

I also disagree with the term "Terrorist". I believe it is just a faction in the middle east believing it is defending it's self and seeking retribution for the atrocities 'merka and it's side kicks in Europe have been doing in the middle east. If "terrorist" is being used because of attacks on civilians then we need to look at the number of civilian casualties in the middle east at the hands of the west. They outnumber those in the US, UK, Frane by orders of magnitude.

War IS terror.

Of course, we are were we are. So we are under threat. Putting up walls and barriers is not going to stop that. Stopping interfering and generating war and hatred in the middle east might go a lot further to stopping it though.

Hahah yea nothing says "defending itself" by blowing up women and children in markets and mosques or beheading journalists and aid workers.

And if you're angry at a countries foreign policy, obviously you can take lives at random then....

France were also against the Iraq Intervention.... ah but they did allow some cartoonists to draw satire of the prophet mohammed, obviously that's their fault then

Also what did countries like Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, (i could go on) do to deserve their terrorist attacks?

 

[Roar87]

Hahah yea nothing says "defending itself" by blowing up women and children in markets and mosques or beheading journalists and aid workers.

And if you're angry at a countries foreign policy, obviously you can take lives at random then....

France were also against the Iraq Intervention.... ah but they did allow some cartoonists to draw satire of the prophet mohammed, obviously that's their fault then

Also what did countries like Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, (i could go on) do to deserve their terrorist attacks?

It's not even worth responding to his post, even ISIS said they want to create a caliphate in the Middle East, they've killed more Muslims in Iraq and Syria than they have Westerners by far. His post is just apologist talk.

 

[dowie]

I also disagree with the term "Terrorist". I believe it is just a faction in the middle east believing it is defending it's self and seeking retribution for the atrocities 'merka and it's side kicks in Europe have been doing in the middle east. If "terrorist" is being used because of attacks on civilians then we need to look at the number of civilian casualties in the middle east at the hands of the west. They outnumber those in the US, UK, Frane by orders of magnitude.

Yeah like when Saudis flew planes into the twin towers, clearly in response to the regular US bombing of Saudi Arabia. And when British Muslims with no connection to the Middle East carry out attacks in their own country, that’s totally our fault too.

Nothing to do with the ideology here guys, loads of Orthodox Christians blew themselves up here when we got involved in Bosnia and Kosovo against the Serbs - clearly it is simply down to our foreign intervention.

Let’s just completely change our Foreign Policy incase it upsets some angry extremists... oh and don’t call them terrorists because we killed people in WW2 and that’s totally the same as running down civilians with a car on a London Bridge.

 

[asim18]

It's a bit like airport security. It has two purposes. To make people feel a little safer while at the same time reminding them that they are at risk. It keeps the populace's attention against the middle east and in line with current military policy. It also keeps people afraid and angry enough so when the government ask for permission to bomb another area of the middle east they will approve.

However this is simply perpetuating the whole thing, which is a (now) 6 decade campaign to prevent the middle east uniting into a super power, at the same time as securing any oil they can and securing control over areas to run pipelines.

God forbid they fight back because they don't have 500lb laser guided bombs, which apparently can hit a postage stamp, so the women and children are safe.... it's a 500lb bomb, it takes the whole street out and no they are not always that accurate. If they fight back it has to be with what they have; IEDs, vans, suicide bombers.

One thing you can be 100% sure of is when that 500lb bomb lands true on the door knocker of an ISIS safe house in Syria ... taking out three buildings full of women and children next door.... on Monday morning the recruitment office queue at ISIS will be three times longer.

When they apparently deal with one bogey man, they manufacturer another, usually by ******* people off afresh bombing them.

I also disagree with the term "Terrorist". I believe it is just a faction in the middle east believing it is defending it's self and seeking retribution for the atrocities 'merka and it's side kicks in Europe have been doing in the middle east. If "terrorist" is being used because of attacks on civilians then we need to look at the number of civilian casualties in the middle east at the hands of the west. They outnumber those in the US, UK, Frane by orders of magnitude.

Remember 60 years ago, it was us who invented carpet bombing of civilians in cities. Look up how many civilians were bombed in Berlin in the 40s. We have Bomber Harris of the RAF to thank for that technique.

War IS terror.

Of course, we are were we are. So we are under threat. Putting up walls and barriers is not going to stop that. Stopping interfering and generating war and hatred in the middle east might go a lot further to stopping it though.

Quality post. Love seeing posts from peope who actually know what's going on.

 

[NoobCannon]

+ 1

 

[Energize]

The entries are not, this is what I believe he is suggesting.

Basically yeah, as any military strategist will tell you, when you concentrate people in an area or create choke points you create a fish in a barrel situation where people are extremely vulnerable to dispersal weapons. Such weapons are easy to manufacture (for example petrol bombs) and have been used in many terrorist attacks.

 

[Smokey Deza]

It also keeps people afraid and angry enough so when the government ask for permission to bomb another area of the middle east they will approve.

Do people get angry? If you're directly affected by a terrorist attack then yes, of course, and then some more. Outside of that, I don't as it's just the status quo now. Second to that, yes, it definitely helps keep people in a state of fear, but why? No one really gives a toss what country we bomb as long as the MSM tells us they're bad.

And no, the walls don't really work. They're no going to stop a drone with an IED strapped to its underside. Guess we'll just throw up some nets when that starts happening.

 

[Diddums]

It's genuinely alarming that some of the people in this thread are out there in the world amongst us. They're out there, driving your buses, cooking your food, teaching your kids. Think about that for a minute.


EDIT: Two. Two people. No prizes for guessing who they are.

 

[Roar87]

We had airport security before 9/11, it's only been a slightly bigger deal since but they still scanned your luggage and made you walk through metal detectors. Pretty sure it was nothing to do with the Middle East when I went on holiday as a kid.

 

[asim18]

Do people get angry? If you're directly affected by a terrorist attack then yes, of course, and then some more. Outside of that, I don't as it's just the status quo now. Second to that, yes, it definitely helps keep people in a state of fear, but why? No one really gives a toss what country we bomb as long as the MSM tells us they're bad.

Yeah people get very angry. In fact there are many extremists on this forum who call for more extreme stuff than the terrorists themselves. There are extremists on both sides.